Even Martin Luther...

...wouldn't have done this:

It's edifying when one's gut instinct is backed up with science, research, or at least history. Those "I knew it but couldn't prove it until now" moments are precious. Here's a little one: not exactly proof, but an interesting  historical perspective of the rights and wrongs of communion in the hand from Fr. Simon Henry's blog. Fr Simon (also known as The Priest In The Hat),  quotes Bishop Athanasius Schneider who argues that Communion in the hand is a Calvinist novelty: apparently even a heretic schismatic protestant like Luther wouldn't have countenanced it. In the shortish period when communion in the hand was permitted, the hands would be purified both before and after holding the host, which was never picked up in the communicant's fingers but taken directly off the hand with the tongue. The hand was then licked to ensure that no fragments remained. Women received Holy Communion from a white cloth draped over their hands; a type of corporal. A deacon supervised the purification of hands.

This is in essence much closer to communion on the tongue as we know it than to the modern sense of "communion in the hand" - a shuffling queue to take the Blessed Sacrament from the hands of a layperson (all too often)  then wandering back to the pew while putting it casually into mouth. Perhaps it should be insisted that communion in the hand is permitted, but must be done *properly* -- as above.

"Yes of course you may receive Communion in the hand, just join that queue over there to have your hands purified, Deacon Pius will make sure that you do it properly, then you can join the "in the hand" queue with extra purification afterwards. Or you could just join the no-hassle queue, kneel down and receive on the tongue." 

See how long it would last then!

Read the whole piece here.

Makes you think, doesn't it?